2025 ADAC Summer Tire Test

The 2025 ADAC summer tire test has been published, and it follows this years trend of testing in the sporty 225/40 R18 tire size!

As always with ADAC they sadly don't give us all the data for the test, but they do give us some interesting insights, including wear, and they do a great job summarising each tires performance overall.

Test Publication:

225/40 R18 18 tires 4 categories

Similar Tests

Images courtesy of ADAC

Test Publication:

https://www.adac.de/rund-ums-fahrzeug/ausstattung-technik-zubehoer/reifen/reifentest/

Images courtesy of ADAC

Test Size: 225/40 R18

Tires Tested: 18 tires

Test Categories:
4 categories (10 tests)

Similar Tests

So, what are the surprises from this years test? There's nothing significantly unusual, but as is usually the case with tire testing, some of the result do not line up with expectations. 

Most notably was the wear test for the Bridgestone Potenza Sport. The Potenza Sport is traditionally one of the higher wearing tires, but in this test it had the fourth best mileage overall which is a dramatic improvement from its usual result! 

Also on the subject of wear, the Doublecoin budget tire put in an incredible result, 25% ahead of the next best (Michelin) however the testers could still not recommend the tire, mostly due to the incredibly bad wet grip. In fact, braking down from 130 km/h in the wet, where you'd be stopped on the Continental you'd still be doing 79.1 km/h on the Double Coin. That's a big accident.

It would be nice to have insight to the rest of the data, but below is what we have. Be sure to check out the summary of the tires performance at the bottom of the page, or on the full article over on the ADAC website.

Wet

Wet braking was as you'd expect on both asphalt and concrete. Continental, Bridgestone, Michelin and Goodyear took the top four places in both tests, with the Doublecoin performing horribly. From now on, we will be ignoring the Double Coin in the results summary.

In the deeper water of the aquaplaning tests the Dunlop and Giti performing consistently across the straight and curved tests.

Dry

The Yokohama Advan V107 narrowly beat the Bridgestone Potenza Sport for the best in dry braking, with an unusually large spread for dry.

Comfort

The external noise test had the Goodyear the best of the tires that you'd consider buying, with the Michelin and Bridgestone noisier during the pass by noise test.

Value

The Michelin, Goodyear and Bridgestone performed well in the wear test, the test winning Continental finished midpack.

Naturally the low wearing, cheap to buy Double Coin was the best value tire, but the best value of the usable tires was the Falken and Bridgestone.

The Bridgestone used about 10% more fuel in the on-road fuel consumption test.

The Michelin had the best wearing compound when you calculate how much compound was worn away during the wear test.

Results

1^st

Continental SportContact 7

225/40 R18 92Y

• EU Label: C/A/72
• 3PMSF: no
• Weight: 9.6 kgs
• Price: 133.00

The Continental SportContact 7 tire receives the highest overall rating in the test, excelling in both safety and environmental performance. It sets the benchmark for driving safety, offering exceptional feedback and control on dry roads, with very short braking distances. It also delivers top performance on wet roads, boasting the shortest wet braking distances and excellent handling, though its aquaplaning resistance in curves is only satisfactory. Furthermore, the tire scores well in environmental impact, demonstrating good projected lifespan, low wear, and high efficiency.

Dry

98.9%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Dry Braking	4th	35.2 M	34.8 M	+0.4 M	98.86%

Wet

94.5%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wet Braking	1st	28.4 M			100%
Wet Braking - Concrete	1st	34.2 M			100%
Straight Aqua	5th	79.6 Km/H	83.7 Km/H	-4.1 Km/H	95.1%
Curved Aquaplaning	12th	2.9 m/sec2	3.5 m/sec2	-0.6 m/sec2	82.86%

Comfort

98.3%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Noise	8th	72.3 dB	71.1 dB	+1.2 dB	98.34%

Value

64.3%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wear	9th	43400 KM	74400 KM	-31000 KM	58.33%
Value	15th	12.26 Price/1000	4.09 Price/1000	+8.17 Price/1000	33.36%
Fuel Consumption	3rd	5.5 l/100km	5.3 l/100km	+0.2 l/100km	96.36%
Abrasion	4th	63.4 mg/km/t	43.9 mg/km/t	+19.5 mg/km/t	69.24%

Read Reviews Test Results Results Table Test Charts

2^nd

Bridgestone Potenza Sport

225/40 R18 92Y

• EU Label: D/A/72
• 3PMSF: no
• Weight: 9.9 kgs
• Price: 121.00

The Bridgestone Potenza Sport earns a "good" overall rating, setting the standard for driving safety with a "very good" score. While it falls slightly short of a "good" rating in environmental performance due to above-average weight and fuel consumption, it excels in driving safety. It delivers exceptional feedback and precision on dry roads with high grip and short braking distances, earning a "very good" rating. It also shines on wet surfaces, achieving top marks for short braking distances and easy handling, making it one of the best tires tested in wet conditions. However, its environmental impact is hindered by average efficiency, despite good scores for projected mileage and abrasion.

Dry

99.7%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Dry Braking	3rd	34.9 M	34.8 M	+0.1 M	99.71%

Wet

95.1%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wet Braking	2nd	28.8 M	28.4 M	+0.4 M	98.61%
Wet Braking - Concrete	2nd	34.6 M	34.2 M	+0.4 M	98.84%
Straight Aqua	9th	78.9 Km/H	83.7 Km/H	-4.8 Km/H	94.27%
Curved Aquaplaning	4th	3.1 m/sec2	3.5 m/sec2	-0.4 m/sec2	88.57%

Comfort

96.3%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Noise	18th	73.8 dB	71.1 dB	+2.7 dB	96.34%

Value

67.7%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wear	4th	50500 KM	74400 KM	-23900 KM	67.88%
Value	8th	9.58 Price/1000	4.09 Price/1000	+5.49 Price/1000	42.69%
Fuel Consumption	18th	5.8 l/100km	5.3 l/100km	+0.5 l/100km	91.38%
Abrasion	5th	63.8 mg/km/t	43.9 mg/km/t	+19.9 mg/km/t	68.81%

Read Reviews Test Results Buy from £229.99 Results Table Test Charts

3^rd

Michelin Pilot Sport 5

225/40 R18 92Y

• EU Label: C/A/72
• 3PMSF: no
• Weight: 9.5 kgs
• Price: 146.00

The Michelin Pilot Sport 5 achieves a "good" overall rating, earning "good" scores for both driving safety and environmental performance. On dry roads, while providing adequate feedback, it can be somewhat sensitive to temperature increases. However, it maintains stability during emergency maneuvers and achieves "very good" braking performance. Similar to other tires tested, the Michelin Pilot Sport 5 also achieves top marks in wet conditions, demonstrating excellent braking and handling, making it one of the best tires in wet conditions. Its environmental impact is positive, thanks to its excellent projected mileage, low abrasion, and efficient performance.

Dry

98%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Dry Braking	6th	35.5 M	34.8 M	+0.7 M	98.03%

Wet

93.8%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wet Braking	3rd	29.2 M	28.4 M	+0.8 M	97.26%
Wet Braking - Concrete	3rd	35.3 M	34.2 M	+1.1 M	96.88%
Straight Aqua	4th	79.9 Km/H	83.7 Km/H	-3.8 Km/H	95.46%
Curved Aquaplaning	6th	3 m/sec2	3.5 m/sec2	-0.5 m/sec2	85.71%

Comfort

97.3%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Noise	16th	73.1 dB	71.1 dB	+2 dB	97.26%

Value

72.1%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wear	2nd	56400 KM	74400 KM	-18000 KM	75.81%
Value	10th	10.35 Price/1000	4.09 Price/1000	+6.26 Price/1000	39.52%
Fuel Consumption	8th	5.6 l/100km	5.3 l/100km	+0.3 l/100km	94.64%
Abrasion	2nd	56.1 mg/km/t	43.9 mg/km/t	+12.2 mg/km/t	78.25%

Read Reviews Test Results Results Table Test Charts

4^th

Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 6

225/40 R18 92Y

• EU Label: C/A/70
• 3PMSF: no
• Weight: 9.2 kgs
• Price: 128.00

The Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 6 earns a "good" overall rating, achieving "good" scores for both driving safety and environmental performance. It provides good feedback on dry roads with stable handling during maneuvers and excellent braking. It excels in wet conditions, achieving top marks with other tires, exhibiting very good braking and handling performance, making it among the best in the test on wet surfaces. Its environmental impact is positive, with good projected mileage, low abrasion, and efficient fuel consumption, supported by its low weight.

Dry

98%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Dry Braking	6th	35.5 M	34.8 M	+0.7 M	98.03%

Wet

93.8%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wet Braking	4th	29.5 M	28.4 M	+1.1 M	96.27%
Wet Braking - Concrete	4th	35.8 M	34.2 M	+1.6 M	95.53%
Straight Aqua	6th	79.4 Km/H	83.7 Km/H	-4.3 Km/H	94.86%
Curved Aquaplaning	4th	3.1 m/sec2	3.5 m/sec2	-0.4 m/sec2	88.57%

Comfort

99.9%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Noise	2nd	71.2 dB	71.1 dB	+0.1 dB	99.86%

Value

65.7%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wear	3rd	50800 KM	74400 KM	-23600 KM	68.28%
Value	9th	10.08 Price/1000	4.09 Price/1000	+5.99 Price/1000	40.58%
Fuel Consumption	8th	5.6 l/100km	5.3 l/100km	+0.3 l/100km	94.64%
Abrasion	7th	74.2 mg/km/t	43.9 mg/km/t	+30.3 mg/km/t	59.16%

Read Reviews Test Results Results Table Test Charts

5^th

Vredestein Ultrac Pro

225/40 R18 92Y

• EU Label: D/A/72
• 3PMSF: no
• Weight: 10 kgs
• Price: 116.00

The Vredestein Ultrac Pro achieves a "good" overall rating, with a "good" score in driving safety, although it doesn't replicate this in environmental performance. It offers good feedback and stable handling on dry roads, with excellent braking. It performs well in wet conditions, achieving "good" ratings for braking and handling, ensuring safe and precise control. However, its aquaplaning resistance is just adequate. Its environmental performance falls short of "good" due to only satisfactory projected mileage and higher weight, though it achieves a "good" score for abrasion and just manages a "good" rating for fuel consumption.

Dry

95.1%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Dry Braking	11th	36.6 M	34.8 M	+1.8 M	95.08%

Wet

90.8%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wet Braking	9th	31 M	28.4 M	+2.6 M	91.61%
Wet Braking - Concrete	6th	37.5 M	34.2 M	+3.3 M	91.2%
Straight Aqua	7th	79.1 Km/H	83.7 Km/H	-4.6 Km/H	94.5%
Curved Aquaplaning	6th	3 m/sec2	3.5 m/sec2	-0.5 m/sec2	85.71%

Comfort

99%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Noise	6th	71.8 dB	71.1 dB	+0.7 dB	99.03%

Value

60.1%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wear	13th	40100 KM	74400 KM	-34300 KM	53.9%
Value	12th	11.57 Price/1000	4.09 Price/1000	+7.48 Price/1000	35.35%
Fuel Consumption	15th	5.7 l/100km	5.3 l/100km	+0.4 l/100km	92.98%
Abrasion	9th	75.5 mg/km/t	43.9 mg/km/t	+31.6 mg/km/t	58.15%

Read Reviews Test Results Results Table Test Charts

6^th

Yokohama Advan Sport V107

225/40 R18 92Y

• EU Label: D/A/71
• 3PMSF: no
• Weight: 10 kgs
• Price: 113.00

The Yokohama Advan Sport V107 earns a "good" overall rating, achieving a "good" score for driving safety due to its "very good" performance on dry roads and "good" performance on wet roads. It provides clear feedback, stable handling, and excellent braking on dry surfaces. It performs well in wet conditions, with good braking and handling, but its aquaplaning resistance is only adequate. However, its environmental performance is only satisfactory due to low projected mileage, average abrasion and high weight.

Dry

100%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Dry Braking	1st	34.8 M			100%

Wet

88.8%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wet Braking	12th	31.2 M	28.4 M	+2.8 M	91.03%
Wet Braking - Concrete	7th	37.7 M	34.2 M	+3.5 M	90.72%
Straight Aqua	16th	75.9 Km/H	83.7 Km/H	-7.8 Km/H	90.68%
Curved Aquaplaning	12th	2.9 m/sec2	3.5 m/sec2	-0.6 m/sec2	82.86%

Comfort

97.5%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Noise	15th	72.9 dB	71.1 dB	+1.8 dB	97.53%

Value

54.1%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wear	17th	34300 KM	74400 KM	-40100 KM	46.1%
Value	17th	13.18 Price/1000	4.09 Price/1000	+9.09 Price/1000	31.03%
Fuel Consumption	15th	5.7 l/100km	5.3 l/100km	+0.4 l/100km	92.98%
Abrasion	17th	95 mg/km/t	43.9 mg/km/t	+51.1 mg/km/t	46.21%

Read Reviews Test Results Results Table Test Charts

7^th

Firestone Firehawk Sport

225/40 R18 92Y

• EU Label: B/A/70
• 3PMSF: no
• Weight: 9.3 kgs
• Price: 110.00

The Firestone Firehawk Sport achieves a "good" overall rating, with a "good" score for driving safety. It falls short of a "good" rating in environmental performance. It provides clear feedback, stable handling, and excellent braking on dry surfaces. It performs well in wet conditions, with good braking and handling. However, its aquaplaning resistance is only adequate. Its environmental performance is only satisfactory due to limited projected mileage and only average abrasion, despite achieving good ratings for efficiency.

Dry

96.9%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Dry Braking	9th	35.9 M	34.8 M	+1.1 M	96.94%

Wet

88.6%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wet Braking	7th	30.9 M	28.4 M	+2.5 M	91.91%
Wet Braking - Concrete	10th	38 M	34.2 M	+3.8 M	90%
Straight Aqua	13th	77.5 Km/H	83.7 Km/H	-6.2 Km/H	92.59%
Curved Aquaplaning	15th	2.8 m/sec2	3.5 m/sec2	-0.7 m/sec2	80%

Comfort

98.3%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Noise	8th	72.3 dB	71.1 dB	+1.2 dB	98.34%

Value

57.2%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wear	16th	34500 KM	74400 KM	-39900 KM	46.37%
Value	16th	12.75 Price/1000	4.09 Price/1000	+8.66 Price/1000	32.08%
Fuel Consumption	3rd	5.5 l/100km	5.3 l/100km	+0.2 l/100km	96.36%
Abrasion	13th	81.1 mg/km/t	43.9 mg/km/t	+37.2 mg/km/t	54.13%

Read Reviews Test Results Results Table Test Charts

8^th

Falken Azenis FK520

225/40 R18 92Y

• EU Label: C/A/70
• 3PMSF: no
• Weight: 9.8 kgs
• Price: 110.00

The Falken Azenis FK520 achieves a "good" overall rating, earning "good" scores for both driving safety and environmental performance. While providing adequate feedback on dry roads, it can be sensitive to temperature increases, making precise steering slightly challenging. However, it maintains stability during maneuvers and achieves excellent braking. On wet roads, it earns an adequate "good" rating with good braking and aquaplaning resistance, although its handling and aquaplaning on curves are only satisfactory, exhibiting some understeer. Its environmental performance is "good," with good projected mileage and abrasion, and efficient fuel consumption, although its weight and sustainability are only average.

Dry

97.2%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Dry Braking	8th	35.8 M	34.8 M	+1 M	97.21%

Wet

89.5%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wet Braking	6th	30.5 M	28.4 M	+2.1 M	93.11%
Wet Braking - Concrete	7th	37.7 M	34.2 M	+3.5 M	90.72%
Straight Aqua	10th	78.7 Km/H	83.7 Km/H	-5 Km/H	94.03%
Curved Aquaplaning	15th	2.8 m/sec2	3.5 m/sec2	-0.7 m/sec2	80%

Comfort

99.2%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Noise	5th	71.7 dB	71.1 dB	+0.6 dB	99.16%

Value

67.9%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wear	5th	46700 KM	74400 KM	-27700 KM	62.77%
Value	7th	9.42 Price/1000	4.09 Price/1000	+5.33 Price/1000	43.42%
Fuel Consumption	8th	5.6 l/100km	5.3 l/100km	+0.3 l/100km	94.64%
Abrasion	3rd	61.9 mg/km/t	43.9 mg/km/t	+18 mg/km/t	70.92%

Read Reviews Test Results Results Table Test Charts

9^th

Dunlop SportMaxx RT 2

225/40 R18 92Y

• EU Label: C/A/71
• 3PMSF: no
• Weight: 9.1 kgs
• Price: 122.00

The Dunlop Sport Maxx RT2 achieves a "good" overall rating, with a "good" score for driving safety. However, its environmental performance is only satisfactory. While providing adequate feedback on dry roads, it can be sensitive to temperature increases. However, it maintains stability during maneuvers, and its braking is considered good. On wet roads, it performs well in all areas, offering good braking and handling. Its aquaplaning resistance is also above average. However, its environmental performance is limited by below-average projected mileage and abrasion, although it excels in efficiency and is the lightest tire in the test.

Dry

93.3%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Dry Braking	13th	37.3 M	34.8 M	+2.5 M	93.3%

Wet

94.2%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wet Braking	13th	31.5 M	28.4 M	+3.1 M	90.16%
Wet Braking - Concrete	11th	38.1 M	34.2 M	+3.9 M	89.76%
Straight Aqua	3rd	81.2 Km/H	83.7 Km/H	-2.5 Km/H	97.01%
Curved Aquaplaning	1st	3.5 m/sec2			100%

Comfort

97.7%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Noise	14th	72.8 dB	71.1 dB	+1.7 dB	97.66%

Value

58.5%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wear	11th	41700 KM	74400 KM	-32700 KM	56.05%
Value	13th	11.7 Price/1000	4.09 Price/1000	+7.61 Price/1000	34.96%
Fuel Consumption	8th	5.6 l/100km	5.3 l/100km	+0.3 l/100km	94.64%
Abrasion	16th	91 mg/km/t	43.9 mg/km/t	+47.1 mg/km/t	48.24%

Read Reviews Test Results Results Table Test Charts

10^th

Nexen N Fera Sport SU2

225/40 R18 92Y

• EU Label: D/A/71
• 3PMSF: no
• Weight: 9.6 kgs
• Price: 99.00

The Nexen N Fera Sport achieves a "good" overall rating, earning "good" scores for both driving safety and environmental performance. While providing adequate feedback on dry roads, it can be sensitive to temperature increases, making precise steering slightly challenging. However, it maintains stability during maneuvers and achieves excellent braking. On wet roads, it receives a "good" rating, with good braking, but it only achieves adequate aquaplaning resistance and handling, exhibiting some understeer. Its environmental performance is "good," with good projected mileage, abrasion, efficiency, low weight and fuel consumption.

Dry

95.3%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Dry Braking	10th	36.5 M	34.8 M	+1.7 M	95.34%

Wet

89.9%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wet Braking	9th	31 M	28.4 M	+2.6 M	91.61%
Wet Braking - Concrete	13th	38.5 M	34.2 M	+4.3 M	88.83%
Straight Aqua	11th	78.3 Km/H	83.7 Km/H	-5.4 Km/H	93.55%
Curved Aquaplaning	6th	3 m/sec2	3.5 m/sec2	-0.5 m/sec2	85.71%

Comfort

99.7%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Noise	3rd	71.3 dB	71.1 dB	+0.2 dB	99.72%

Value

64.3%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wear	8th	43700 KM	74400 KM	-30700 KM	58.74%
Value	5th	9.06 Price/1000	4.09 Price/1000	+4.97 Price/1000	45.14%
Fuel Consumption	8th	5.6 l/100km	5.3 l/100km	+0.3 l/100km	94.64%
Abrasion	8th	74.7 mg/km/t	43.9 mg/km/t	+30.8 mg/km/t	58.77%

Read Reviews Test Results Results Table Test Charts

11^th

Toyo Proxes Sport 2

225/40 R18 92Y

• EU Label: D/A/71
• 3PMSF: no
• Weight: 10 kgs
• Price: 109.00

The Toyo Proxes Sport 2 achieves a "good" overall rating, earning a "good" score for driving safety. However, its environmental performance is only satisfactory due to limited projected mileage. While providing adequate feedback on dry roads, it can be sensitive to temperature increases, making precise steering slightly challenging. However, it maintains stability during maneuvers and achieves excellent braking. On wet roads, it performs well with good braking and handling, but it narrowly misses a good rating for aquaplaning resistance. Its environmental performance is limited by only satisfactory projected mileage, abrasion, and weight, although it achieves a good rating for fuel consumption.

Dry

98.3%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Dry Braking	5th	35.4 M	34.8 M	+0.6 M	98.31%

Wet

90.2%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wet Braking	9th	31 M	28.4 M	+2.6 M	91.61%
Wet Braking - Concrete	9th	37.8 M	34.2 M	+3.6 M	90.48%
Straight Aqua	12th	78 Km/H	83.7 Km/H	-5.7 Km/H	93.19%
Curved Aquaplaning	6th	3 m/sec2	3.5 m/sec2	-0.5 m/sec2	85.71%

Comfort

98.2%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Noise	10th	72.4 dB	71.1 dB	+1.3 dB	98.2%

Value

57.2%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wear	15th	36600 KM	74400 KM	-37800 KM	49.19%
Value	14th	12.11 Price/1000	4.09 Price/1000	+8.02 Price/1000	33.77%
Fuel Consumption	8th	5.6 l/100km	5.3 l/100km	+0.3 l/100km	94.64%
Abrasion	15th	85.9 mg/km/t	43.9 mg/km/t	+42 mg/km/t	51.11%

Read Reviews Test Results Results Table Test Charts

12^th

Ceat SportDrive

225/40 R18 92Y

• EU Label: D/A/71
• 3PMSF: no
• Weight: 9.7 kgs
• Price: 90.00

The Ceat SportDrive achieves a "satisfactory" overall rating. Its driving safety performance is "satisfactory," with a "good" rating on dry roads but falling short of "good" on wet roads. While providing adequate braking on dry surfaces, its feedback and handling are only satisfactory, exhibiting sensitivity to temperature increases and limited stability at the limit. On wet roads, it performs below average in braking and aquaplaning, with mediocre grip and handling. Its environmental performance is nearly "good," with good projected mileage, low abrasion, low weight and low fuel consumption.

Dry

93.6%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Dry Braking	12th	37.2 M	34.8 M	+2.4 M	93.55%

Wet

85.1%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wet Braking	16th	33.3 M	28.4 M	+4.9 M	85.29%
Wet Braking - Concrete	16th	42 M	34.2 M	+7.8 M	81.43%
Straight Aqua	15th	76 Km/H	83.7 Km/H	-7.7 Km/H	90.8%
Curved Aquaplaning	12th	2.9 m/sec2	3.5 m/sec2	-0.6 m/sec2	82.86%

Comfort

99.4%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Noise	4th	71.5 dB	71.1 dB	+0.4 dB	99.44%

Value

65.7%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wear	6th	45100 KM	74400 KM	-29300 KM	60.62%
Value	2nd	7.98 Price/1000	4.09 Price/1000	+3.89 Price/1000	51.25%
Fuel Consumption	3rd	5.5 l/100km	5.3 l/100km	+0.2 l/100km	96.36%
Abrasion	11th	80.5 mg/km/t	43.9 mg/km/t	+36.6 mg/km/t	54.53%

Read Reviews Test Results Results Table Test Charts

13^th

Kumho Ecsta PS71

225/40 R18 92Y

• EU Label: D/A/72
• 3PMSF: no
• Weight: 9.8 kgs
• Price: 103.00

The Kumho Ecsta PS71 achieves a "satisfactory" overall rating due to its "satisfactory" performance in driving safety, hindered by its performance on dry roads. It performs well on wet roads. Its environmental performance is also "satisfactory," contributing to the overall rating. On dry roads, it offers inadequate feedback, lacks precision, and is sensitive to temperature, resulting in unstable handling. However, it achieves excellent braking. On wet roads, it performs well, with near-excellent braking and excellent handling. Its aquaplaning resistance is good, but it narrowly misses a "good" rating for lateral aquaplaning. Its environmental performance is limited by a low projected mileage and average abrasion and efficiency.

Dry

100%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Dry Braking	1st	34.8 M			100%

Wet

93.7%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wet Braking	5th	30.2 M	28.4 M	+1.8 M	94.04%
Wet Braking - Concrete	5th	36 M	34.2 M	+1.8 M	95%
Straight Aqua	1st	83.7 Km/H			100%
Curved Aquaplaning	6th	3 m/sec2	3.5 m/sec2	-0.5 m/sec2	85.71%

Comfort

96.6%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Noise	17th	73.6 dB	71.1 dB	+2.5 dB	96.6%

Value

57.8%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wear	14th	37300 KM	74400 KM	-37100 KM	50.13%
Value	11th	11.05 Price/1000	4.09 Price/1000	+6.96 Price/1000	37.01%
Fuel Consumption	15th	5.7 l/100km	5.3 l/100km	+0.4 l/100km	92.98%
Abrasion	14th	85.7 mg/km/t	43.9 mg/km/t	+41.8 mg/km/t	51.23%

Read Reviews Test Results Results Table Test Charts

14^th

Nokian Powerproof 1

225/40 R18 92Y

• EU Label: C/A/69
• 3PMSF: no
• Weight: 9.4 kgs
• Price: 100.00

The Nokian Tires Powerproof 1 achieves a "satisfactory" overall rating, limited by its "satisfactory" performance in driving safety, despite a "good" environmental performance score. On dry roads, it provides inadequate feedback, lacks precision, and is sensitive to temperature, leading to unstable handling. However, it achieves good braking. On wet roads, it performs well across all criteria, earning "good" ratings for braking, aquaplaning resistance, and handling. Its environmental performance is "good," with good projected mileage, abrasion, and efficiency.

Dry

92.1%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Dry Braking	15th	37.8 M	34.8 M	+3 M	92.06%

Wet

90.9%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wet Braking	13th	31.5 M	28.4 M	+3.1 M	90.16%
Wet Braking - Concrete	14th	39 M	34.2 M	+4.8 M	87.69%
Straight Aqua	7th	79.1 Km/H	83.7 Km/H	-4.6 Km/H	94.5%
Curved Aquaplaning	3rd	3.2 m/sec2	3.5 m/sec2	-0.3 m/sec2	91.43%

Comfort

98.2%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Noise	10th	72.4 dB	71.1 dB	+1.3 dB	98.2%

Value

65.4%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wear	10th	42500 KM	74400 KM	-31900 KM	57.12%
Value	6th	9.41 Price/1000	4.09 Price/1000	+5.32 Price/1000	43.46%
Fuel Consumption	3rd	5.5 l/100km	5.3 l/100km	+0.2 l/100km	96.36%
Abrasion	6th	67.7 mg/km/t	43.9 mg/km/t	+23.8 mg/km/t	64.84%

Read Reviews Test Results Results Table Test Charts

15^th

Giti GitiSportS2

225/40 R18 92Y

• EU Label: D/A/70
• 3PMSF: no
• Weight: 9.8 kgs
• Price: 114.00

The Giti GitiSport S2 achieves a "satisfactory" overall rating due to its "satisfactory" performance in both driving safety and environmental performance. On dry roads, it offers adequate feedback but lacks precision, is sensitive to temperature, and exhibits unstable handling. Its braking is good. On wet roads, its braking is only satisfactory, below average compared to the test field. Its handling is nearly satisfactory, with low grip leading to understeer or oversteer and imprecise control. However, it performs well in aquaplaning. Its environmental performance is limited by below-average projected mileage and abrasion. It achieves a good score for fuel efficiency due to low fuel consumption, but the high weight results in an only satisfactory rating.

Dry

88.3%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Dry Braking	17th	39.4 M	34.8 M	+4.6 M	88.32%

Wet

88.7%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wet Braking	17th	34.6 M	28.4 M	+6.2 M	82.08%
Wet Braking - Concrete	17th	44.4 M	34.2 M	+10.2 M	77.03%
Straight Aqua	2nd	82.6 Km/H	83.7 Km/H	-1.1 Km/H	98.69%
Curved Aquaplaning	2nd	3.4 m/sec2	3.5 m/sec2	-0.1 m/sec2	97.14%

Comfort

98.8%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Noise	7th	72 dB	71.1 dB	+0.9 dB	98.75%

Value

54.1%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wear	18th	33600 KM	74400 KM	-40800 KM	45.16%
Value	18th	13.57 Price/1000	4.09 Price/1000	+9.48 Price/1000	30.14%
Fuel Consumption	3rd	5.5 l/100km	5.3 l/100km	+0.2 l/100km	96.36%
Abrasion	18th	97.7 mg/km/t	43.9 mg/km/t	+53.8 mg/km/t	44.93%

Read Reviews Test Results Results Table Test Charts

16^th

Norauto Prevensys 4

225/40 R18 92Y

• EU Label: D/A/70
• 3PMSF: no
• Weight: 9.6 kgs
• Price: 94.00

The Norauto Prevensys 4 achieves an "adequate" overall rating, primarily due to its weak performance in driving safety, particularly on dry roads. Despite a "good" rating on wet roads and a "good" score for environmental performance, its dry road shortcomings limit the overall result. On dry roads, it exhibits significant weaknesses, losing performance with increasing temperature, providing poor feedback, and responding slowly to steering inputs, leading to unstable handling and oversteer. Its braking distance is good. On wet roads, it achieves a "good" overall rating with slightly above-average braking and slightly below-average handling, allowing for safe and mostly precise control. It narrowly misses "good" ratings for aquaplaning resistance. Its environmental performance is "good," with good projected mileage, abrasion, and efficiency.

Dry

90.6%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Dry Braking	16th	38.4 M	34.8 M	+3.6 M	90.63%

Wet

89.7%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wet Braking	7th	30.9 M	28.4 M	+2.5 M	91.91%
Wet Braking - Concrete	12th	38.4 M	34.2 M	+4.2 M	89.06%
Straight Aqua	14th	77.1 Km/H	83.7 Km/H	-6.6 Km/H	92.11%
Curved Aquaplaning	6th	3 m/sec2	3.5 m/sec2	-0.5 m/sec2	85.71%

Comfort

98.2%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Noise	10th	72.4 dB	71.1 dB	+1.3 dB	98.2%

Value

64.5%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wear	7th	44700 KM	74400 KM	-29700 KM	60.08%
Value	4th	8.41 Price/1000	4.09 Price/1000	+4.32 Price/1000	48.63%
Fuel Consumption	8th	5.6 l/100km	5.3 l/100km	+0.3 l/100km	94.64%
Abrasion	11th	80.5 mg/km/t	43.9 mg/km/t	+36.6 mg/km/t	54.53%

Read Reviews Test Results Results Table Test Charts

17^th

Syron Premium Performance

225/40 R18 92Y

• EU Label: C/B/72
• 3PMSF: no
• Weight: 9.6 kgs
• Price: 84.00

The Syron tires Premium Performance achieves an "adequate" overall rating, primarily due to its weak performance in driving safety, especially on dry roads. It nearly achieved a "good" rating for environmental performance, but its overall performance is limited to "adequate." On dry roads, it exhibits significant weaknesses, losing performance with increasing temperature, providing poor feedback, and responding slowly to steering inputs, leading to unstable handling and oversteer. Its braking distance is good. On wet roads, it achieves a "satisfactory" overall rating, narrowly missing a "good" rating for braking. Its aquaplaning resistance is only satisfactory. Its handling performance is "adequate," struggling to combine longitudinal and lateral forces effectively, leading to understeer and oversteer. It nearly achieved a "good" rating for environmental performance, but also for projected mileage. Its abrasion is rated "good." It achieves a "very good" rating for fuel consumption and performs well in weight.

Dry

92.8%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Dry Braking	14th	37.5 M	34.8 M	+2.7 M	92.8%

Wet

82.6%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wet Braking	15th	32.3 M	28.4 M	+3.9 M	87.93%
Wet Braking - Concrete	15th	40.9 M	34.2 M	+6.7 M	83.62%
Straight Aqua	17th	73.2 Km/H	83.7 Km/H	-10.5 Km/H	87.46%
Curved Aquaplaning	17th	2.5 m/sec2	3.5 m/sec2	-1 m/sec2	71.43%

Comfort

98.2%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Noise	10th	72.4 dB	71.1 dB	+1.3 dB	98.2%

Value

65.5%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wear	12th	41500 KM	74400 KM	-32900 KM	55.78%
Value	3rd	8.1 Price/1000	4.09 Price/1000	+4.01 Price/1000	50.49%
Fuel Consumption	2nd	5.4 l/100km	5.3 l/100km	+0.1 l/100km	98.15%
Abrasion	10th	76.3 mg/km/t	43.9 mg/km/t	+32.4 mg/km/t	57.54%

Read Reviews Test Results Results Table Test Charts

18^th

Double Coin DC 100

225/40 R18 92W

• EU Label: C/C/72
• 3PMSF: no
• Weight: 9.7 kgs
• Price: 76.00

The Doublecoin DC100 receives a "deficient" overall rating due to its dangerously poor driving safety performance. While it achieves the best environmental performance score in the test, this cannot compensate for its hazardous handling. On dry roads, it exhibits significant weaknesses, losing performance with increasing temperature, providing poor feedback, and responding slowly to steering inputs, leading to unstable handling and oversteer. Its braking distance is rated as "good." On wet roads, the Doublecoin DC100 fails completely. Its braking performance is so poor that it receives a "deficient" rating. For instance, it requires approximately 45 meters to stop from 80 km/h on wet asphalt compared to about 28 meters for the best tire, a difference of 17 meters. Handling is also "deficient" due to very low grip, early understeer/oversteer, and very long braking distances, resulting in highly imprecise steering. Aquaplaning resistance is rated as "adequate." Despite its poor performance in driving safety, the Doublecoin DC100 achieves the best environmental performance score in the test, mainly due to its very high projected mileage and very low abrasion. It also achieves the top score for efficiency, primarily due to its low fuel consumption. Its sustainability is rated as "adequate.".

Dry

88.1%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Dry Braking	18th	39.5 M	34.8 M	+4.7 M	88.1%

Wet

65.5%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wet Braking	18th	45.1 M	28.4 M	+16.7 M	62.97%
Wet Braking - Concrete	18th	55.2 M	34.2 M	+21 M	61.96%
Straight Aqua	18th	69.3 Km/H	83.7 Km/H	-14.4 Km/H	82.8%
Curved Aquaplaning	18th	1.9 m/sec2	3.5 m/sec2	-1.6 m/sec2	54.29%

Comfort

100%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Noise	1st	71.1 dB			100%

Value

100%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wear	1st	74400 KM			100%
Value	1st	4.09 Price/1000			100%
Fuel Consumption	1st	5.3 l/100km			100%
Abrasion	1st	43.9 mg/km/t			100%

Read Reviews Test Results Results Table Test Charts